battlefieldfandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Nayhem
Welcome Hi, welcome to Battlefield Series Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Cerbere Landing page. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Bondpedia (Talk) 11:18, December 14, 2009 Category work Attempting to clean up the flow of categories. Let me know if I've broken something.Nayhem 01:12, September 7, 2011 (UTC) :While your intentions are good, I'm afraid you might want to familiarize yourself with the categories section of our manual of style, which outlines the preferred style for categories. In particular you will realize that categories such as Category:Vehicles should not be removed from relevant articles. Your reformatting of Category:Battlefield 2 vehicles to Category:Vehicles of Battlefield 2 is, however, very helpful - 13:53, September 7, 2011 (UTC) ::If you want a task to do, perhaps you could recategorize everything in Category:Weapons of Battlefield into Category:Weapons? - 14:25, September 7, 2011 (UTC) :::Sorry about the trouble. And yes, I was considering looking over weapons next. Thanks for the heads up. - Nayhem 23:01, September 7, 2011 (UTC) :::Personally, the use of an overarching 'Categories' category seems wasteful. The and pages already serve this function. I also believe it would be much better to list only terminal categories, and to list them before game categories, since certain weapons and equipment may be used in a later game, and the no-edit category section on every page favors adding to the end. - Nayhem 06:18, September 8, 2011 (UTC) ... You should just use AutoWikiBrowser, it'll take a lot less time to substitute categories that way. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 23:34, September 7, 2011 (UTC) :As soon as I find out how to get permission to use here (and how the tool itself works)… - Nayhem 23:59, September 7, 2011 (UTC) Quality A veteran of this wiki i presume? no wonder why you edit so good. you might see a nomination if you keep up this work Zephalian 08:27, September 8, 2011 (UTC) P.S im not an admin :Actually, no. It's been a while since I first found the site. Just recently I decided to take some free time to fix what needs it. I have been editing Wikipedia for a lot longer, and some other Wikia projects, but quite irregularly. I do like organizing things, and that AWB tool is pretty useful, too. - Nayhem 08:31, September 8, 2011 (UTC) :Cool, the wikipedia has so many open choices, that i cannot possibly keep up, and by the way you show the aspects of an admin and your alot like the previous UOTM. Zephalian 08:32, September 8, 2011 (UTC) RE:Categories Nah, you're doing some great work, but categories are a wierd thing. Basically, what we do with categories is we try to keep them simple. If we make categories simple, such as having just a basic Weapons of Battlefield 2 category, we don't need to make an Assault Rifles of Battlefield 2 category for weapons like the M16 and the L85, as we can put that information in templates and in the page itself. Hence the reason for reverting the Expansion Maps of BF2 back to Maps of BF2. But, some great work with the new pages. - 12:59, September 10, 2011 (UTC) :It has to be said, going through categorizing things is, I think, soooooooooo tedious. Well done for getting on and doing it - 13:06, September 10, 2011 (UTC) ::I don't mind it at all. If it helps people find related pages, then its purpose is served. Going back to the Maps of BF2 example, it seemed that the two existing categories were designed for 'original' maps and expansions, though it could also have been two different mindsets choosing their own categories and failing to see what was already there. I thought that all of the changes I made were being reverted. ::I don't think categories need to get more complicated than a tree of in-game items or features, and a secondary classing by game titles—kind of a two-dimensional system. It would make it easier for new articles to simply belong to one item/feature category and to as many game categories as necessary, with templates bridging any other gaps. Thanks for your input. - Nayhem 03:58, September 11, 2011 (UTC) Re: Yes, they can be recovered. However, the work seemed rather redundant because firstly, most of the article was nothing more than listing IFVs in different games(which is why we have categories), and secondly a lot of the information is already covered on the pages of the individual vehicles; there is also the risk that "comparing" vehicles will lead to subjective interpretation rather than factual (ie somebody writing "LAV-AD is superior to the 9K922 Tunguska because it can be seaborne"). Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 17:50, May 14, 2012 (UTC) :Not having played other games in the series, I was hoping to leave it up to other editors, rather than do third-hand research of my own. As for comparisons, there are plenty of valid ones to be made between the types. And even though your Tunguska example can only really be observed by PC players on one map, the fact that one is amphibious is still a valid point. I suppose what I'm really complaining about is that there was no discussion on whether the article was useful, just outright deletion.Nayhem 00:21, May 16, 2012 (UTC) Re: I Protected the page.-- Slopijoe<3 You bro 10:04, September 19, 2012 (UTC) Hi Could you assist me in writing articles for BF3 classes please as you have better at writing articles then me at it.-- Slopijoe<3 You bro 13:27, September 22, 2012 (UTC) :If such is needed. Just keep in mind I've only had first hand experience with 2142, BF3, and Heroes. Nayhem (talk) 23:50, September 22, 2012 (UTC) Forum Issues There's pretty much nothing wrong on my end. Try going to the forums again, and see what happens. Rangers Lead 23:23, March 20, 2013 (UTC) :Not happening anymore, whatever it was. Nayhem (talk) 06:01, March 22, 2013 (UTC) Hey Could I get a source for this? Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 05:57, June 12, 2013 (UTC) :Done. Didn't show up in the Commander trailer, like someone else said. Nayhem (talk) 06:13, June 12, 2013 (UTC) ::Thanks. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 06:17, June 12, 2013 (UTC) Favor The XM25 is not a gadget, but it is in the category - Weapons of Battlefield 4. Since you did it could you replace it with the right category? I tried but my browser wont delete it when i press the trash can icon next to the wrong categories while in edit mode. Much appreciated -- awyman13 {Talk}' { }' 08:47, June 13, 2013 (UTC) :I'm torn. In game, it occupies a gadget slot, but is obviously a weapon like the M320 and M26. I suppose the safe route is to class it as both. I used the edit controls at page bottom; have you tried the actual edit page itself? Nayhem (talk) 09:01, June 13, 2013 (UTC) Yes ive tried the page. Also on the Shank page you made. Its only different from the Knife in look so it wasnt really necessary so i combined the info into the Knife page and redirected your original page to that. -- awyman13 {Talk}' { }' 09:09, June 13, 2013 (UTC) Re: There's been a verbal understanding for a while that tactics aren't supposed to be around. Or rather, that subjectivity isn't supposed to be around. I'm sorry if you personally liked those pages, but we don't stand for subjectiveness on this site. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 02:30, June 17, 2013 (UTC) :Unplanned gameplay versus arcane standards? I suppose what you're trying to say is that these things belong in a blog or something. Nayhem (talk) 02:58, June 17, 2013 (UTC) ::Basically, yes. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 03:04, June 17, 2013 (UTC) ::::We don't put information that can vary from user to user here, such as "this gun is the best gun in Battlefield 8645." That can be disputed and cause un-needed arguements and flamewars on the wiki. We need professional, quality stuff like "The AR17346A57 is an assault rifle featured in Battlefield 8645: Martian Attack DLC. It is unlocked by completing the "Thisistotallyfakebutcouldbeanactualgun" assignment where you edit 10 million articles on the Battlefield Wiki. It does 50 damage per shot at any range and fires at 68475 Rounds per minute." 03:09, June 17, 2013 (UTC) Many other Wikias like the COD Wiki also had tactics for many pages and removed them for the same reason above and believe me that Wikia was BIG on tactics. -- awyman13 {Talk}' { }' 03:11, June 17, 2013 (UTC) :On an unrelated note, I remember being one of the foremost proponents of removing tactics on the CoD wiki back when I was an editor there. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 03:14, June 17, 2013 (UTC) ::I wasn't a big player in that Yuri but I do remember that. 03:17, June 17, 2013 (UTC) :::Anywho the case is simple, tactic pages are simply put: greater excuses to subjective info. To me opinionated stuff like: TEH M16A3 is so OP it makes other guns invalid. I would rather not do so. If it was, me and yuri would be playing edit wars with the vehicles.-- Slopijoeheil dir im siegerkranz 03:20, June 17, 2013 (UTC) :::Or tywin, two fanboys who have 100 service stars on 1 weapon each could have a flame war on the weapon pages saying like "No the AR17346A57 sucks the M18347A85 is so much better and AR17346A57Fanboy sucks the balls of the M18367A85 and he knows it" 03:22, June 17, 2013 (UTC) The way I went about these was more along the lines of "these are things that players might do". So if someone had a question like "wtf is roofing?" or "how is that jeep flying through the air?", there was an article to answer that. None of these articles were about "this is better than that", which I remove often enough from weapon or map articles. Maybe they shouldn't have been called "tactics", which seems to evoke opinions rather than a sense of "you can try this". Nayhem (talk) 07:20, June 17, 2013 (UTC) Trusted User How would you feel on being a Trusted User here at the BF Wikia? Youve made tons of great edits in the past 4 Years! I'll ask a B-Crat if you agree but it not a sure thing (though im confident). Until then, keep up the editing! -- '' awyman13'' Talk ' 22:45, August 22, 2013 (UTC) :I would certainly appreciate it. Thanks for considering it! Nayhem (talk) 23:07, August 22, 2013 (UTC) Question Theres a thing I noticed about you, your good at writing in guide format, thats a person I need ATM. Someone as your talent shouldnt be wasted. Im trying to figure out how I can rewrite some of the Gun Articles for BF3 similiar to this. So far your the only one with natural talent for this. Is it possible you can write it similiar to the BF3 Saiga 12K for MP during your free time? If you can, great. If not well I can attempt to ask an other person (I'll guarentee that your edits dont get reverted or any hard work is trashed).-- The Imperial Fleet Serving the empire since since 1708 06:51, August 25, 2013 (UTC) : Thanks for noticing. I had a bit of experience writing for GameFAQs back in the day. What page(s) are you asking to be rewritten? Personally, I think the BF3 MP section on the Saiga page has too many suggestions and opinions, and I hope you're asking how to make it more objective. I do recall some of my earlier writing not being up to standard. If you're asking about making walkthrough-style articles (which I suppose the Humble Bundle crowd could use at the moment), that can also be arranged. The M224 Mortar page was mostly my work—even now some parts stand out as being more prescriptive than descriptive. I'll probably clean some stuff up when I add BF4 information to it. In the mainspace articles, we should be telling readers how weapons and vehicles *can* and *might* be used, instead of how they *should* be used. Things I try to include are known facts (from Battlelog, Symthic or other reliable sources), its role in battle, strengths and weaknesses, and quirks that might not be readily apparent. We can leave opinions to the YouTube guys. Nayhem (talk) 05:48, August 26, 2013 (UTC) Write it in a way you feel comfortable, let me see it and I'll decide from there. The fact that you write guides makes it better. I agree with all of your sentences. Give me an example and I'll make sure your edits arnt "undone".-- The Imperial Fleet Serving the empire since since 1708 21:55, August 27, 2013 (UTC) ::It's a wiki. What edits can't be undone? Nayhem (talk) 02:56, August 30, 2013 (UTC) Image Licenses Hello! Some of your images need proper licensing. It looks like you got the templates down, and even provided some links in the summary, however, they need to be actually formatted into the template itself (specifically, the Fair Use). For example, take a look at the Fair Use template here. In source mode, the licensing looks like this: If you need assistance, let me know. Thanks! '' [[User:PLR Soldier|'PLR Soldier]][[user talk:PLR Soldier|'Talk']] '' 01:18, August 30, 2013 (UTC) :Damn good photos though :) -- '' awyman13'' Talk' ' 01:36, August 30, 2013 (UTC) ::Agreed! Only trying to make them better. ;) '' [[User:PLR Soldier|'PLR Soldier']][[user talk:PLR Soldier|'Talk']] '' 01:46, August 30, 2013 (UTC) :::Got it. Some are my screenshots. What do I need for the other three? Nayhem (talk) 02:56, August 30, 2013 (UTC) ::Like PLR said you need the "EA" and "Fair" templates put on those photo pages like he listed above. For the Fair use, put the hyperlink of the photos page in the center. That wiki link to the bf3 page is just an example. -- '' awyman13'' Talk' ' 02:59, August 30, 2013 (UTC) ::Also for the photos you took. They dont need the Fair Use template but EA still technically owns those pics so they still need the EA template. '' awyman13'' Talk' ' 03:00, August 30, 2013 (UTC) :::I'll learn to read someday. I thought the upload page would have plugged things in the right places. Nayhem (talk) 04:47, August 30, 2013 (UTC) ::::Looks like you got the hang of it. Good job. :) '' [[User:PLR Soldier|'PLR Soldier']][[user talk:PLR Soldier|'Talk']] '' 04:02, August 31, 2013 (UTC) Kloud Its ok Nayhem, thanks for your input over what happened on Klouds talk page. Lets just leave the guy alone for now. He may think we're ignorant but its actually him as he aparently takes everything as being hostile or a threat and being that hes new he doesnt know how the Wikia works. Dont worry about it man. -- '' awyman13'' Talk ' 12:12, September 4, 2013 (UTC) Trusted User! '' [[User:PLR Soldier|'PLR Soldier]][[user talk:PLR Soldier|'Talk']] '' 02:45, September 5, 2013 (UTC) :Thanks! Nayhem (talk) 02:52, September 5, 2013 (UTC) . comment on this please Forum:Status of Tactic pages Changed -- The Imperial Fleet Serving the empire since since 1708 03:05, September 5, 2013 (UTC) 2142 EDITS Good job on reaching 2142 edits, keep up the good work! DiCePWNeD Recon| | 06:29, September 5, 2013 (UTC) : lol thanks! Almost missed it. Half of them might have been immediate re-edits, but I'll take what's there. Had to make sure to screenshot it before this made 2143. Nayhem (talk) 20:41, September 5, 2013 (UTC) Veteran Award :Thanks again! Nayhem (talk) 00:21, September 10, 2013 (UTC) Battlelog parsing As I'm currently stuck on x86 (32-bit), seems I'm on Battlelog duty for a moment. Bear with me if there are minor irritations. There are some inconsistencies with naming in certain places. For instance, the Vehicle stats show the "RCB", while the Dogtags show "RCB-90". I think we're giving the killfeed priority over any Battlelog stuff. Nayhem (talk) 08:59, October 1, 2013 (UTC) :Probably -- '' awyman13'' Talk ' 16:58, October 1, 2013 (UTC) User of the Month! '' [[User:PLR Soldier|'PLR Soldier]][[user talk:PLR Soldier|'Talk']] '' 09:23, October 12, 2013 (UTC)